Talk:vorstellen

vorstellen
Rfd-redundant: (reflexive) to introduce oneself . This is just sense 1, (transitive) to introduce, to present, where the object is oneself. -- Liliana • 18:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it take sich in this sense? — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It does take sich, but it's the wrong case to be reflexive (accusative case, when it should be dative as in sense 3). -- Liliana • 08:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "sich vorstellen" ("to introduce oneself") uses accusative (sense 2), "sich vorstellen" ("to imagine") uses dative (sense 3).
 * Keep sense. Alternatively, allow reflexive verbs like in Czech, Spanish, Russian (the last two have particles written together).
 * There seems to be no policy on reflexive verbs in German. Nor there is a distinction between accusative and dative cases. Either "sich" verbs should be allowed or verbs without "sich", should be allowed to be marked as reflexive. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A Dutch example I was able to find: aankleden (cognate of German ankleiden). Mentioned in WT:ANL. Only the policy page uses non-existent . There is a template, though. Perhaps German reflexive verbs could be treated similarly (Dutch verbs could also use ). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * still exists, as it's in Module:labels/data. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. French also uses "pronominal" for the same purpose. See habiller (reflexive: "s'habiller") --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But how is this any different from sense 1? You failed to answer this question. -- Liliana • 11:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for taking too long to get back. I thought I have explained by using Dutch and French examples and language policies. Not adding reflexive verbs just because their meaning can be construed doesn't sound good to me at all. Not all transitive verbs can become reflexive. They can have intuitive and not intuitive sense. Besides, having sense #3 but not #2 (which is equally common) would be really confusing - not just senses, the grammar is different. The meaning of Dutch "zich aankleden" can be understood when one knows "aankleden" but it's still helpful to have a new sense, even if reflexive terms don't get own entries. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * With this argumentation you could add so-called "reflexive" senses to almost any verb, like waschen, mögen, kennen, etc., just because they can take sich as an object. This works for pretty much any German verb. I don't think it's a good argument at all. -- Liliana • 11:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't have to create them but I don't see why they should be deleted if someone adds them. "Sich waschen" means "to wash oneself" but "sich kennen" means "to know each other". As I said, the second sense of "sich vorstellen" is important because there exists another sense with a different meaning and grammar. Since there is no explicit policy on German reflexive verbs, French and Dutch policies could and should be reused. This term and sense is included in world-known dictionaries, including Duden. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a difference in the two verbs you use as examples, you can also say "sich waschen" to say to wash each other. (It's really the use of sich as the third person plural, rather than singular.) You claimed that this sense is in the Duden so I checked; no, it's not present. Where did you get that from? -- Liliana • 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The reflexive verbs appear under non-reflexive: Duden vorstellen: sich vorstellen: "jemandem, den man nicht kennt, seinen Namen o. Ä. nennen". A dict.cc English-German for dict.cc vorstellen translation. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I checked the printed version and it doesn't have that sense (though it does contain sense 3). Anyway, the evidence here is weak; the two are subsenses subsumed under a single point 4, so even the Duden considers them one and the same sense. -- Liliana • 14:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the evidence is weak. I have provided both the evidence and policy examples, my rationale for keeping. As this discussion is about language policy changes - whether we need to keep reflexive verbs (separate entries) or reflexive senses in the non-reflexive entries, and it affects not just this entry and just German I suggest to move it to BP. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What kind of policy? I don't see no policy anywhere. I only see your personal opinion that you're trying to defend through dubious means. There is no need to invoke the BP here (nice try to end this discussion forcefully), consensus in here will decide just fine. -- Liliana • 13:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Liliana-60 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC). OK, the example isn't German, but is provoked by "kennen", in (Low Saxon influenced) Dutch I can say "ik was mezelf" en "ik was me" ("I wash myself/me"). I can also say "ik ken mezelf", but I can't say "ik ken me" ("I know myself/me"). So yes, the reflexive sense can be understood from the transitive sense, but not all transitive words can be used reflexively. --80.114.178.7 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's can't be a consensus with only two people talking. You have to defend your case for deletion. I'm not forcing anything, just explaining what seems right to me. Do what you want, dealing with you only causes frustration but you need to advise other people of how you wish to treat reflexive verb forms. I'm out of this is discussion --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep sense. I am not really sure, but I err on the side of keeping. For one thing, "sich vorstellen" (introduce oneself) and "sich vorstellen" (imagine) get easily confused I think, and if the entry only contains a sense for "transitive" and one for "reflexive" for "imagine", it will not be clear to many a reader that "transitive" includes "sich vorstellen" in the sense of "introduce oneself". So I think the separation is useful even if probably not strictly necessary. Moreover, Duden online seems to differentiate the two senses as 4a and 4b (pointed out by Anatoli above). On another note, I see nothing wrong with bringing issues to Beer parlour if they pertain to more than a single entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Outcome: RFD kept. Two boldfaced keeps; one boldfaced delete implied in the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)